I feel like this is still confusing to understand, any suggestions as there were a lot of words that can be confusing to understand? For every conditional argument, does there need to be a "/" (Not) aka a contrapositive section for all these arguments going forward?
I got I -> SC because I read it as if it's an immutable trait, then they qualify for the suspect class. Can someone please explain better why it's SC -> I?
@Laylay when I read "plantiffs make a showing ...", i thought there could be a possibility for them not to qualify. It is necessary to "make a showing..", but that doesn't mean you qualify or suffice to qualify for equal protection analysis. Maybe the court doesn't like the reasoning you came up with.
@Danaizha Yeah after doing some more lessons I think I've got it now. So when I originally looked at I thought of it as you need an immutable trait to then qualify for the suspect class. That reasoning is correct but you cannot write it as I -> SC, because the immutable trait is the necessary condition so the necessary condition must go on the left of the arrow (so it should be SC -> I).
I see a lot of comments complaining about the complexity and the fact that there is no video. Don't give up! What helped me was identifying the conditional premise (the first sentence sets up the rules of the game, that's how I think through it), then seeing the author state we don't have the necessary condition (plaintiff makes a showing that X characteristic of Y class is an immutable trait), and thus it is not possible for us to have the sufficient condition as well (membership in suspect class).
I hope this helps, I may have messed up with the language of the premises so take that with a grain of salt. Keep at it guys and don't give up!!
If you can, study partners or even someone to talk to along this journey helps a ton.
@ryokace In order for the plaintiff to qualify for suspect class they need an immutable trait. Homosexuality is not an immutable trait, therefore they do not qualify.
@MRod Aka membership in the suspect class is sufficient for an immutable trait but not necessary. Membership in as a immutable trait is necessary for the suspect class
To qualify as a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis, plaintiffs must make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait. Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. The court therefore declines to find that plaintiffs constitute a suspect class.
Can you say an additional assumption that the judge makes is that they are assuming plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that another characteristic is an immutable characteristic? Other than homosexuality?
My breakdown (Long winded, mainly for my self but feel free to read if it helps)
Suspect class is the sufficient condition here, and plaintiffs making a showing is the necessary condition.
Membership in the suspect class is sufficient to be part of the plaintiffs making a showing class, but it is not necessary as there are other ways that one can make a showing that the characteristic's defining the class is an immutable trait.
The reverse of this that helps me further understand is that: Membership in plaintiffs making a showing is necessary to be part of the suspect class (sufficient condition), but it is not good enough (sufficient) because there could be more things you need to check in order for you to get into that smaller bubble of the suspect class.
The second sentence is where we see the contrapositive of "X is not a member of set B". This is shown by the sentence saying "Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic". Basically to be part of B we need to show that characteristic's defining the class are immutable, and then the second sentence say "well, you actually haven't shown any characteristic defining the class (homosexuality I think) as an immutable.
This is finally ties back into the final sentence in the form of "If not B (Superset) than not a member of A (Subset). How is this shown? The court basically said "oh you don't have membership in set B (the superset), so we cant give you membership into set A (The subset)
Membership in set B being characteristics to define the class as immutable, and membership in set A being to qualify as a suspect class
@kaleighh.04 do the exponent form is only used when the premises illustrate a set! in this case homosexuality(h) is a superset of the subset of "plantiff make a showing that homosexuality is a immutable trait trait"
@BrianShellenberger I ran into the same issue. I believe the instructor wrote "SC -> I" because that is the form of the conditional premise. Writing "/I -> /SC" would mean that the conditional premise (first sentence) would be:
"To not possess an immutable trait, plaintiffs must not qualify as a suspect class."
I'm not understanding how they mapped it out SC->I because I started with I -> SC? Can someone explain how this was done. I saw another comment about it but still did not understand.
@Williamh I made the same mistake too! The way I understood it is that MUST signals a requirement, so I is a necessary condition. The sentence didn't say "if SC then I". It said I is necessary for SC to happen, hence SC->I
@Williamh Visualize them as subsets and supersets. For it to be a special class, it must be immutable i.e., the special class has to be immutable, but just because it is immutable, does not mean it has to classify as a special class.
You're on the right track, but you're mapping it out backwards. To be suspect class (S), homosexuality must be an immutable trait (I): S -> I. Plantiffs have not shown that homosexuality (H) is an immutable trait: H -> /I. If it's not an immutable trait then it cannot be a suspect class: /I -> /S (this is the contrapositive of the first premise). Therefore, H -> /I -> /S. Does this make sense?
@cjl Hm okay I see now. I guess another clue is the case saying "plaintiffs must make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait", and whatever's on the right side of the arrow is the "necessary" clause. Thanks for the clarification!
It kind of does: "I" = the plaintiff making a showing that homosexuality is an immutable trait. So it does include immutable trait, but it's highlighting that this argument's premise is just that the plaintiff doesn't SHOW or CITE that homosexuality is immutable. Therefore, the argument is open for criticism on homosexuality still being an immutable trait (just that the plaintiff failed to show or cite that).
@mariafreese This answered the question I had, thank you! I was confused by the bonus question, but having it in plain language makes it easier to wrap my head around.
i love that he asked a bonus question - whether there was any assumption. as soon as i read that, i went back to the stimulus and found the assumption. nice!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
98 comments
the visual circle is easier here.
I feel like this is still confusing to understand, any suggestions as there were a lot of words that can be confusing to understand? For every conditional argument, does there need to be a "/" (Not) aka a contrapositive section for all these arguments going forward?
I was beating myself up for confusing the sufficient and necessary in the first sentence.
The word "must" triggers the necessary.
This example helped me understand:
To enter the bar, you MUST be 21.
o If you are inside the bar--> you are 21
x If you are 21--> you are in the bar
I got I -> SC because I read it as if it's an immutable trait, then they qualify for the suspect class. Can someone please explain better why it's SC -> I?
@Laylay when I read "plantiffs make a showing ...", i thought there could be a possibility for them not to qualify. It is necessary to "make a showing..", but that doesn't mean you qualify or suffice to qualify for equal protection analysis. Maybe the court doesn't like the reasoning you came up with.
@Danaizha Yeah after doing some more lessons I think I've got it now. So when I originally looked at I thought of it as you need an immutable trait to then qualify for the suspect class. That reasoning is correct but you cannot write it as I -> SC, because the immutable trait is the necessary condition so the necessary condition must go on the left of the arrow (so it should be SC -> I).
@Laylay i thought necessary condition was always in the right?
I see a lot of comments complaining about the complexity and the fact that there is no video. Don't give up! What helped me was identifying the conditional premise (the first sentence sets up the rules of the game, that's how I think through it), then seeing the author state we don't have the necessary condition (plaintiff makes a showing that X characteristic of Y class is an immutable trait), and thus it is not possible for us to have the sufficient condition as well (membership in suspect class).
I hope this helps, I may have messed up with the language of the premises so take that with a grain of salt. Keep at it guys and don't give up!!
If you can, study partners or even someone to talk to along this journey helps a ton.
Could someone please break it down? I can't seem to understand this example
@ryokace In order for the plaintiff to qualify for suspect class they need an immutable trait. Homosexuality is not an immutable trait, therefore they do not qualify.
SC -> I (suspect class equals immutable trait)
h/I (homosexuality is not immutable)
--------------------------------------
h/SC (homosexuality is not suspect class)
@JJR Thank you!
hi, is there a place on the site in which I can practice these?
I'm digesting the material but still need some practice.
SC -> I
h/I
-----
h/SC
@MRod Aka membership in the suspect class is sufficient for an immutable trait but not necessary. Membership in as a immutable trait is necessary for the suspect class
To qualify as a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis, plaintiffs must make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait. Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. The court therefore declines to find that plaintiffs constitute a suspect class.
SC --> I
h/I
h/SC
Can you say an additional assumption that the judge makes is that they are assuming plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that another characteristic is an immutable characteristic? Other than homosexuality?
My breakdown (Long winded, mainly for my self but feel free to read if it helps)
Suspect class is the sufficient condition here, and plaintiffs making a showing is the necessary condition.
Membership in the suspect class is sufficient to be part of the plaintiffs making a showing class, but it is not necessary as there are other ways that one can make a showing that the characteristic's defining the class is an immutable trait.
The reverse of this that helps me further understand is that: Membership in plaintiffs making a showing is necessary to be part of the suspect class (sufficient condition), but it is not good enough (sufficient) because there could be more things you need to check in order for you to get into that smaller bubble of the suspect class.
The second sentence is where we see the contrapositive of "X is not a member of set B". This is shown by the sentence saying "Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic". Basically to be part of B we need to show that characteristic's defining the class are immutable, and then the second sentence say "well, you actually haven't shown any characteristic defining the class (homosexuality I think) as an immutable.
This is finally ties back into the final sentence in the form of "If not B (Superset) than not a member of A (Subset). How is this shown? The court basically said "oh you don't have membership in set B (the superset), so we cant give you membership into set A (The subset)
Membership in set B being characteristics to define the class as immutable, and membership in set A being to qualify as a suspect class
yeah im cooked for sure
@KeziaH19 felt lol
@KeziaH19 girl me too
@KeziaH19 felt
Ok I am so confused.
For some reason I did..
SC -> I
/h -> I
/I -> SC
how do you know not to do the arrows and to make it in exponent form?
@kaleighh.04 you missed a lesson i think
@kaleighh.04 do the exponent form is only used when the premises illustrate a set! in this case homosexuality(h) is a superset of the subset of "plantiff make a showing that homosexuality is a immutable trait trait"
Am I dissecting this correctly? :
Necessary Condition: I
Sufficient Condition: SC
So the Lawgic would be:
SC->I
hSC
-----
hI.
However, since the plaintiff didn't satisfy the necessary condition of 'I', the contrapositive would be...
/I-> /SC
h/I
----
h/SC.
I guess I'm getting hung up on the notation of the
SC-> I
h/I
----
h/SC.
Are you combining the two notations into one?
@BrianShellenberger I ran into the same issue. I believe the instructor wrote "SC -> I" because that is the form of the conditional premise. Writing "/I -> /SC" would mean that the conditional premise (first sentence) would be:
"To not possess an immutable trait, plaintiffs must not qualify as a suspect class."
I didn’t like this example it was extremely confusing…
@A'mariePollard same and the fact theres no video either like
In order to be a rock climber, one must be an athlete. One is not an athlete, therefore one is not a rock climber.
@DrewBecker If R --> A. /A, therefore /R
QS --> SIT
They did not SIT.
/SIT --> /QS.
P/SIT.
Conclusion: /QS.
To get into Harvard, you must submit an application.
This doesn't mean if you submit an application, you'll get into Harvard.
Harvard Student -> Submitted Application
I'm not understanding how they mapped it out SC->I because I started with I -> SC? Can someone explain how this was done. I saw another comment about it but still did not understand.
@Williamh I made the same mistake too! The way I understood it is that MUST signals a requirement, so I is a necessary condition. The sentence didn't say "if SC then I". It said I is necessary for SC to happen, hence SC->I
@Williamh Visualize them as subsets and supersets. For it to be a special class, it must be immutable i.e., the special class has to be immutable, but just because it is immutable, does not mean it has to classify as a special class.
Immutable is superset
Social class is a subset of immutable.
What I did was:
I -> S;
!H^I
-----
!H^S
Where I = immutable trait; S = suspect class; H = homosexuality.
Can someone explain how I can get to the right answer?
You're on the right track, but you're mapping it out backwards. To be suspect class (S), homosexuality must be an immutable trait (I): S -> I. Plantiffs have not shown that homosexuality (H) is an immutable trait: H -> /I. If it's not an immutable trait then it cannot be a suspect class: /I -> /S (this is the contrapositive of the first premise). Therefore, H -> /I -> /S. Does this make sense?
@cjl Hm okay I see now. I guess another clue is the case saying "plaintiffs must make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait", and whatever's on the right side of the arrow is the "necessary" clause. Thanks for the clarification!
I use the Speechify browser plug-in to read these lessons that don't have videos to me using Mr. Beast's voice. It's a trip.
Im a bit confused. shouldn't "I" represent immutable trait?
It kind of does: "I" = the plaintiff making a showing that homosexuality is an immutable trait. So it does include immutable trait, but it's highlighting that this argument's premise is just that the plaintiff doesn't SHOW or CITE that homosexuality is immutable. Therefore, the argument is open for criticism on homosexuality still being an immutable trait (just that the plaintiff failed to show or cite that).
@mariafreese This answered the question I had, thank you! I was confused by the bonus question, but having it in plain language makes it easier to wrap my head around.
i love that he asked a bonus question - whether there was any assumption. as soon as i read that, i went back to the stimulus and found the assumption. nice!
I got it right! Drawing it out exactly as you have been demonstrating helped—consistency in form is key!